Type Your Article Here ...
For other things I've written (I've been doing so on the Internet for years), either "Google" my name or go to "The Mongoose Trick - Speaking Truth to Tyranny" on Google or elsewhere.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." --William Colby, former CIA Director.
I always watch the several liberal programs in the evening. Laughter is good medicine, and by the end of a day I often need good medicine. The ED Show, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, and the like never fail to provide comic humor, the kind the comedy shows of television once provided. Last night, for instance, Maddow dropped me to my knees in front of my chair when with that sarcastic while giddy gravitas of hers she pontificated that something having been said about the latest economic meandering of the White House was rich with generality but poor on specifics.
That’s from a commentator who supported the “health care” (if you think this was about health care, you might want to read the damned thing – set aside for the task a couple of weeks, of course) legislation under which we now languish.
Sorry, Tom Bergeron, but America's Funniest Videos is nowhere near as funny as the political channels and the pratfalling ineptitude of their program "hosts." Just the lugubrious look of Ed Schultz, when he asks, "Aren't we better than this?" puts me in stitches.
And having mentioned “gravitas,” I’m reminded of Maddow’s having “tracked down” (that according to another nitwit nostrum-peddling website on the World Wide Web) a candidate's views on masturbation. Not that such should surprise anyone who’s observed the epicene Maddow’s dress, manner, and leering facial expressions. She’s obviously very concerned about such matters, lesbian sex providing as it does opportunity for nothing but masturbation. Any political attack on sexual self-satisfaction would be something like anti-gun activism’s attempts to end the ownership of firearms by suing manufacturers of gunpowder every time someone is injured by a gun.
If you didn’t follow that, good for you; Rachel, no doubt, would have.Then, sides aching and with folks peering into the television room to look at me strangely, I switched to the FoxNews channel, just in time to see the comedy counterpoint for folks like Maddow, Ann Coulter.
Whew! Is there a way to characterize this manic motor-mouth? Every archetype I can think of pales by comparison with her maundering mindlessness. Blah, blah, blah. Mention anything or anyone liberal or having to do with the Democrat Party and get a selection of vituperative vapidity unlike anything anyone outside a rubber room could so much as imagine, let alone say aloud. I still think, however, and for an instance of what I mean, her reply to something said by a disabled veteran of the Vietnam War - “No wonder you lost the war!” Ann of Inanity said - takes the prize.
But it’s all indicative of the level to which television – and, I’m afraid, public – discourse has dived (crawled? slithered?).
The scum-sucking electorate of the United States likes their politics and public “debate” (when’s the last time you saw an actual debate on television – or don’t you know what I mean?) this way. And, yup, I’m going to talk about military industrial complex Frankenstein Monster the Central Intelligence Agency’s Operation MOCKINGBIRD again – questions.
I’ve asked this one several times before, to all my representatives in congress - to all the major news networks, too: Who actually wrote Public Law No: 111-148 - “H.R. 3590: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?” (Or whatever the hell it turned out to be – few of our representatives read it, remember, and our Little Annie Fanny Speaker-ess of the House advised they’d have to pass it in order to find out what it said).
Whose was the hand that put the words on the paper? Since our congress obviously didn’t write the damned thing – maybe they don't read what they write? - why didn’t we asked the person or persons who did write it what it says? Or didn’t that occur to anyone – Rachel Maddow, ED, Olberman, and the like? Why didn’t the supposed liberal-hating Coulter, or Sean Hannity ask? Bill O’Reilly – Bill of the Harvard education, mind you – didn’t think to ask who wrote the bill? With all the thunderously obvious bullshit flying around concerning for whose actual benefit this monstrosity was being done, wouldn’t knowing who wrote the legislation tell us a lot?
Just observing that the only ones who will come out of that particular congressional Misthaufen (that’s a manure pile in German, and the best analogy I could think of) smelling like roses are the health care industry folks like doctors and hospitals tells me, for one, a lot. The doctors and hospitals will get paid, everyone else – like the patients congress is so maudlin about – will get a bill that’ll make him sick again.
Some “health care.”
Questions, questions. Why doesn’t someone on the Tee and Vee – one of those Harvard graduates, for instance – add up (subtract, multiply, or divide; hell, a lot of us can go so far as algebra – I’m even conversant with calculus) the costs and mathematical implications of things like the national budget, the interest, and all the rest? Yesterday, for instance, I did a little long division and came up with the fact of campaign finance meaning a cost of thirty-two dollars a vote.
And, to show you how German irreverent and exactness-demanding I am, if capitalism is so damned great, and socialism and communism never work, how come Red China owns us? Shouldn't we maybe go to them for "affordable health insurance?"
I still can’t believe we went through all of that uproar and bloviating about health care insurance, and not one of those Harvard – not even Yale or another of those wonderful Ivy League colleges – graduate experts discussed even the simplest basics of insurance principles. Why not explain the fundamental principle or principles upon which the concept of insurance are based? Wouldn’t anyone have liked to know that what was being discussed was not insurance, but welfare? No one wanted to know that in order to insure more people for more things - “perils” (it’s an insurance term – look it up, folks [those TV experts sure as hell won’t; neither will your congressman]) - anyone who doesn’t want the system to quickly go broke will have to raise insurance premiums?
That when an insurance fund may not charge persons who represent a higher risk of loss – and who therefore have more claims – all the rest of the policyholders must make up the difference? Why not tell the public that because anti-discrimination law (which has in fact nothing to do with the subject, incidentally) prohibits charging, for instance, Hispanic males (among whom seventeen to thirty-five years of age traffic accidents are the leading cause), whites must pay far higher premiums?
Or has the question now become clearer . . .?
If I insure ten people for ten dollars against hangnails, then have to insure – a pandering politician has a gun to my head – twenty more people and include flatulence (two of the new “insureds” are bureaucrats) in the coverage, how do I do that without raising the price? Come to think of it, if I make the flatulence a “public option” – meaning no premium being paid for the (welfare) coverage, don’t I have to have the treasury print more funny money? Flatulence now becomes a lot like "inflation," doesn't it?
Yeah, of course, I have to have more money printed (where else will the money come from if the new “insureds” are the poor and indigent?). We know the government doesn’t just go out and rob people in order to handle things like that; why, that would be Robin Hood and Jesse James welfare finance.
Questions, questions. Rachel Maddow’s “specifics,” even. Or Ann Coulter’s. Why none of these questions, much less their answers?
Why, with all the balderdash-blabbering and uproar concerning illegal immigration across the border with Mexico, with all the sneering comment like that of Rory Kennedy recently in her book, “The Fence,” does no one ever discuss the actual estimated cost (far less, actually, than one missile-firing submarine) of a fence? Why no details concerning design, material, and time required?
Let's have some specifics - numbers, please - rather than all those galaxy-wide generalities.
Why does no one tell the public how the government and others who act as apologists for illegal aliens estimate numbers of illegals who would be given amnesty? Will amnesty be like enactment of Public Law No: 111-148 – “Health Care” - we’ll find out how many there are after they’ve become legal and begin signing up for social security and other federal programs? Is that how we count?
Why in all the nitwit nonsense being spewed about concerning Operation Iraqi Freedom did we not once hear a discussion of the blast effect of a 2,000 pound JDAM (“Joint Direct Attack Munition” – no one may say “bomb” anymore)? Why no such discussion concerning Afghanistan or Pakistan – what is the blast effect of a Predator drone’s missiles? If we’re going to hammer the public ear endlessly concerning civilian casualties, why not tell us about all that “pin-point accuracy?”
Why, with all the utter – with all the females now holding forth on matters once reserved to those who might from personal experience know what in hell they were talking about; males, I mean, maybe I should say “udder” – nonsense concerning supposed those WMDs – weapons of mass destruction – did no one mention, not a hint, spy satellites that we have for years boasted can read a car license plate from space? No one thought to ask – as I did time and again – how Saddam could build factories, transport missiles, and do all the logistical support for such without one photo having been obtained?
How was Iraq in 2003 different from Cuba in 1962 - when photos of Soviet missiles on the island festooned every newscast?
More importantly, why did not one “analyst” or pundit on television ever mention the connection?
Why does no “guest” on any of the political shows like those I mention here, guests who are trumpeted and blazoned to represent the opposing view, ever ask any of these colossally obvious questions? I might as well ask when Chris Matthews of “Hardball” (Christ, how mush-macho can you get?) will stop interrupting and talking over his "guests."
Parenthetically, a recent "guest" supposedly defending gun ownership was an example of the kind of “debate” political television represents. If ever there was a political polemic example of the Harlem Globetrotters-Washington Generals contest, that was it. Absurd!
And while I’m on the subject of guns, why from the media absolutely none again of the relevant statistics? There, perhaps, is the answer to all my questions. Every time there is a shooting anywhere in the U.S., the media can be counted on to present all the details - including whatever is most lurid. That’s while not one example is ever mentioned of a citizen – or, for that matter, police officer – preventing a murder or crime by means of a gun. Did I say, “obvious?!” What purpose, in short, does the media today serve? Information, news?
Or propaganda, and a nation’s public like mushrooms being farmed – “kept in the dark and fed bullshit.”